10 Aug 09
Originally posted by rwingettThe main reason I myself doubt the words of Jesus, or what of them can be found in the bible, is that
Miracles are simply not possible within a scientific understanding. Unless you want to define 'miracle' as simply meaning 'a highly unlikely event.' Again, Jesus would not address science, as that is not why he came, but he would not contradict science either. A modern day Jesus would make his message consistent with scientific understanding. That way we wo ...[text shortened]... e sure his 'followers' knew it. He would PUBLISH his own words the second time around.
he failed to anticipate the future. A true Messiah, honestly, would have presented his message such
that it can't be disputed no matter what new facts and knowledge science presents about the physical
world.
Either people didn't get his message very well and failed to account for everything he said, or he
wasn't the Messiah at all. That's what I think. Science, as you say, shouldn't be able to find anything
that contradicts the "truth" as presented by a Messiah. If it does, then maybe the "Messiah" was false.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by rwingettScience is based on constant questioning and analysis. Christians rarely question or analyse their faith.
One could just as easily say that if it wasn't for Christianity retarding our progress, we probably would have discovered and invented even more.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by Conrau KWasn't it Christianity unfettered which began all of Western civilization?
[b] Wasn't it Christianity as the fountainhead before every seminal accomplishment man has achieved?
I doubt it. Early Christian theologians looked to the ideas of the Greeks, like Plato and Aristotle, to ground their doctrines in a strong philosophical base. The great Latin theologians, St Augustine and St Jerome, were also zealous devotees to the ...[text shortened]... f Western civilisation simply overlooks the substantial contribution of classical civilisation.[/b]
This quote is what you are objecting to. My reference was to the renaissance and reformations which were triggered by a return to Christian thinking.
As some here have pointed out, religiosity is to blame for the Dark Ages. However, that (religion and its attendant power plays) is not "Christianity unfettered."
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by FrogspondenceWhat "the church" does is not what Christianity is. Two different animals altogether, as history has repeated shown.
Well Galileo Galilei thougth that the Earth moved, in contradiction with Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 (depending on your translation, but who would want to read the bible in Hebrew anyway?). And he was a heretic. Also his book was one of countless books banned by the church at one time or another. Banning books does not advance s ...[text shortened]... political power, but you have to admit there were times they did a whole lot of impeding.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by rwingettTo those in His days on earth, what He had to say and do was retrogressive and/or in any number of ways, against the grain of their acceptance.
If Jesus were around today, and had access to all the scientific knowledge that we have, he would adjust this theology accordingly. But (many) contemporary Christians are determined to remain forever stuck in a first century mindset, forever fighting against the tide of progress.
Given that He created the universe, I'd dare say that His grasp of scientific knowlege still supersedes the elevated status we've supposedly achieved even today.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by rwingettI do not think Paul's theology is what Jesus had in mind.
The corruption started with Paul. I do not think Paul's theology is what Jesus had in mind.
If this were made into two sentences, I would agree with you wholeheartedly:
I do not think.
and
Paul's theology is what Jesus had in mind.
There. Much better.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPaul saw Jesus as a bright flash in the sky wondering why Paul stalked His believers. Then Paul
[b]I do not think Paul's theology is what Jesus had in mind.
If this were made into two sentences, I would agree with you wholeheartedly:
I do not think.
and
Paul's theology is what Jesus had in mind.
There. Much better.[/b]
spoke in words suspiciously like the Old Scriptures, rather than in the gist of Jesus as described by
His own disciples. How can you trust that Paul's words were definite accounts of what Jesus had in
mind?
Let me guess. You know it in your heart, right?
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloBut, it's still the case that deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process.
We can make a distinction between pragmatic justification and epistemic justification, just like we can distinguish the question of whether or not benefits may come from believing a proposition from the question of whether or not that proposition is, in fact, true (or if the evidence warrants belief). But, it's still the case that deliberative belief format ...[text shortened]... plishment man has achieved?[/b]
No, of course not. Is that some sort of joke?[/b]
I don’t think you’re using the term correctly if you consider the concept anything other than “an active process.” By it’s very nature, deliberation is action.
… I do not really have the direct ability to bring about that belief in me apart from what I take as truth-indicating or plausibility-conferring evidence for it.
No one is asking you to manufacture faith; this has never been part of the equation.
Even so, in the lack of such evidence…
I’m not clear as to what evidence is lacking, and I am equally unclear as to what you consider to be the object of faith. It sounds as though you think the object of faith is the miraculous aspects of Scripture. If I am wrong in this assumption, please correct me.
As far as I am concerned, though, Christianity (taken, naively, as belief in some specific set of propositions) can just fade into extinction.
I fail to see what your beef with the “set of propositions” might be. That being said, what Christianity is all about, worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, will never fade.
If it serves purpose on at least some level for you (for example, in helping to imbue your life with meaning), then great.
No, my life had meaning prior to any belief or any spiritual epiphany. Belief certainly enhanced my enjoyment of life. However, an aspect of my life on this planet would never have been realized without that belief: spiritual life which was previously non-existent.
What about negative aspects of religiosity as it has regarded our progress?
Man will always have power plays. Can’t blame Christianity for that.
… and it wouldn't necessarily show that we have reasons on the whole to actively preserve or perpetuate such religiosity as we move forward. And, of course, it wouldn't show that it isn't evidentially challenged.
Granted, it is impossible to prove the value or impact the non-occurrence of an established event--- although quite a few books attempt just such a thing. That being said, as we move into a highly secularized world wherein Christianity becomes an after-thought
10 Aug 09
I think Christians should admit that the so called "Church" at times in history did indeed impede understanding and knowledge. Galileo is a perfect example. Should all Christians be held accountable for this? I know a lot of Christians try to bend knowledge but truth as best we know it should stand on it's own. I love science in it's purest form.
Manny
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by JigtieThen Paul spoke in words suspiciously like the Old Scriptures, rather than in the gist of Jesus as described by His own disciples.
Paul saw Jesus as a bright flash in the sky wondering why Paul stalked His believers. Then Paul
spoke in words suspiciously like the Old Scriptures, rather than in the gist of Jesus as described by
His own disciples. How can you trust that Paul's words were definite accounts of what Jesus had in
mind?
Let me guess. You know it in your heart, right?
"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."
"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
Yep. Just like them Ol' Scriptures. As they say, tone is everything.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. My objection is to your comment that Christianity is responsible for all of man's seminal accomplishments.
This quote is what you are objecting to. My reference was to the renaissance and reformations which were triggered by a return to Christian thinking.
As some here have pointed out, religiosity is to blame for the Dark Ages. However, that (religion and its attendant power plays) is not "Christianity unfettered."
And I hardly see the renaissance as a return to Christian thinking, rather than a return to classicism -- imitating classical artwork, architecture, and literature. While substantial theological innovation did occur, with the rise of Martin Luther and Protestantism, this can hardly be considered responsible for the renaissance.